| Wild at Heart - John Eldridge|
This book so far (have about 30-40 pages left to go) has been amazing. It put words into my mouth, that I couldn't ever dream of saying.
That the church has men that are just plain sissy's. Aren't willing to stand up and be a man. Why? because of a wound. And the solution is let Christ heal this wound and then stand and be a man.
This is my own perspective on this book. It really shakes the ideas of what masulinity should be, biblicaly from his perspective.
It really has brought me insight into the 'male' and 'female' lives.
I thought this book at first was gonna be like a redneck book, where 'we all need to go to the country and shoot some deer to become a man' but that isn't the case. But instead an embracing of the TRUE warrior within each man.
If you read this book, please share your 2 cents.
Also, I found alot of wonderful 'quotes' that are profound. I'll see if I can post those within the next week. 8-)
| 2005/11/16 11:37|
| Re: Wild at Heart - John Eldridge|
I read the book on recommendation from an enthusiastic friend. I'll spare everyone the usual disclaimer about this book being another typical pop-psychology bible study...it's real purpose is to get men to stop apologizing for being...well, manly.
Eldridge humerously observes that men in the past could do manly things like dig large holes, hunt animals, or build log cabins. He noticed on the other hand that his only manly skill was loading paper into the copy machine. (Or something like that...)
I classified the book as a reaction against what the author claims is a feminization of men in our modern religion. Eldridge wants Christian men to see themselves as warriors, and heros, not church greeters. I discussed the book with a group of men, incidentally during a weekend fishing trip for Muske
;-) While in the boat, they told me that since they read the book, they were all recovering RNG's. (Really Nice Guys.)
Well I didnt catch anything that weekend, but I was wearing heavy flannel. Thats a step.
| 2005/11/16 13:11||Profile|
Well I didnt catch anything that weekend, but I was wearing heavy flannel. Thats a step.
| 2005/11/16 13:43||Profile|
To the Mature in Heart;
I pumped into or perhaps if you will ran into a BOOK about a year ago, I cant quite remember the name of this book. I do remember however being so impressed by the authors style of writing. He wrote with such confidence.
In his autobiography He spoke about being raised in a church, surrounded by prayer and worship. He remembered being a child and looking up and seeing these Giant Man of God.
He loved them all, but there was one that was his favorite. I wish I could remember his name. He was SPECIAL!
One day this unforgettable author, name? Looked and Looked but could not find this special Giant. When ever his name was mentioned there was such a sad look of disappointment on his face. He never saw him again.
You never know who looks up to you.
| 2005/11/16 14:37||Profile|
| Re: wild at heart|
I don't want to bash John Eldridge or his books- so instead, I would like to recommend an alternative: [url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590522729/002-8439603-9760055?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance]God's Gift To Women: Discovering The Lost Greatness of Masculinity[/url] by Eric Ludy.
I won't get into all the details about why I disagree with Eldridges advice and doctrine and pyschology- I know there will probably be others who can do that for me :) But my husband and I have read it and now we have both read God's Gift To Women. It is superb and biblically sound. Being a christian 'man' also has to do with dying to self and letting God rule as KING- you don't see that in Wild at Heart, but that is the whole of God's Gift to Women. GGTW is also about being a warrior- a warrior poet and one who knows that to be a 'real' christian man takes living an "exchanged life" - excanging your dreams and wants and desires for those of Christs.He is now living through you and directing you. That's not the message you get from WAH.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents :-)
In His love, Chanin
| 2005/11/16 18:36||Profile|
I read something in the past on Ludy, maybe it was a team book. (like him and his wife)
When you read books you don't go to them for perfect doctrine, that's only found in the bible.
I know a few area's within the book that 'questionable' some are just down right wrong. But hey, many of them were based on his experience and suggests 'maybe what works for me might work for you'.
Reading the description is wonderful. 'God's gift to women' well, to be honest (not to burst your bubble) women were created from man. I believe 'wo-man' means from man.
Now, I'm not saying a 'master-servant' relationship, that's totally unbiblical. But, from the description, it makes sense of being a 'little less rough' as a man.
Personally, I'm a momma's boy. "Sweet, caring, considerate, loving..etc" Well, to be 100% honest, I'm a Jesus boy. Because, Christ raised me (long story). But to categorize the way He trained me up was under a 'mothers' wing.
| 2005/11/17 0:08|
While I absolutely and fully agree with John's recommendations for men to be manlier, what is of concern to me is his presentation on the nature of God. It's been nearly two years since I read the book so I may be off on what he said, but I heard a recording of a Rabbi giving much the same presentation recently and I guess this particular sort of teaching is where John got the idea from.
I understand that to anthropromorphise God is like trying to explain the fusion reaction within stars by describing a raindrop falling into a cup of tea, it doesn't make sense because there is just no comparison. God is so far beyond our understanding that we cannot understand/conceptualise Him. So God knowing that we as limited beings need to relate to Him without having our brains leak out our ears, has presented Himself in the form we see in the Bible, so that we can have at least something to 'hold on to' so to speak.
What my objection to the presentation of God in John's book is that God is male and female. It kinda womanises God, and indicates that Love and Tenderness and a longing for intimacy are strictly female emotions, and that sometimes God is manly and sometimes womanly depending on how He feels, or how we are relating to Him. While I understand that there is much more to God than what is described in the Bible, we have a responsibility not to put our own interpretations and spin on things and remain true to His Word. God is consistently presented as our Father, and Jesus who would know best didn't call Him His parent in Heaven but rather His Father. And I think this is because as hard as it is to understand God's Character He's more like a good strong father than anything else we can relate to.
I would be interested to hear other opinions on this its not really a salvation issue, but I think its essential nonetheless to have a correct understanding of the nature of God.
| 2005/11/17 3:35||Profile|
I don't believe in ANY way shape or form that John is limiting God as you are concluding.
or this "It kinda womanises God, and indicates that Love and Tenderness and a longing for intimacy are strictly female emotions, and that sometimes God is manly and sometimes womanly depending on how He feels, or how we are relating to Him. "
Strictly? nope, John never concluded this.
Statistics don't lie. Who are more emotional: men or women? WOMEN. Who are more rough: men or women? MEN.
I'm not saying this is a '100%' fact, but a generalization. Many people look at the same thing and have different perceptions. You might look at a purple tea cup and say 'that's an oblong holding utencil with a shade of fu-sha' But they all agree that it's still a purple tea cup. 8-)
John, I think more so wanted to bring God as a warrior. And that look, the men were warriors. We are to be a reflection of God.
Again, there are many things wrong with EVERY man of God. Spurgeon, Finney, Booth, everyone, each had their own 'problems'. Some had rage, and at times it WASN"T HOLY. We have are sin, we have our differences. I'm not saying we are to compromise anything.
But, a book isn't written as the WORD OF GOD. Only ONE book in the entire world fits that criteral. Even a prophetic book that makes you shake when you read it, has error. Why? WE ARE HUMAN!
Any man can pick up a bible and see it as a LIVING word from God.
Now, if I picked up 'Wild at Heart' it might be 'living' in some areas. But 'dead' in others. But now, someone else might pick it up and say 'that was a boring book, no new bread'.
My case is, first off, I don't know John, I just read ONE of his' books. and was wondering if anyone else God edified.
Instead, I have a few people 'hissing'. Chill, everyone has error. YOU DO, I DO. We all do. I'd like to see you write a book that is completly infallable, without coping the word of God ;-) good luck with that :-P
I think men feel 'pulled' to be wusses. Push overs. Some have rage problems, other have no anger in them not even holy anger.
John just took one extreme and sounds like the other book that was recommened takes the other end. So, men ...read both books. I'll try to ;-)
| 2005/11/17 23:50|
But they all agree that it's still a purple tea cup.
Unless it's more of a lavender, lilac, plum, or violet tea cup. There is quite a difference. (Hand on hip)
| 2005/11/18 1:00||Profile|
I personally appreciated his viewpoint on what a woman wants to see in a man. I have heard time and time again that the psychology of sex is pretty much to get the rebel to birth the child and have the nice guy raise him.
Well, warriors are often poets, and have a tendency to express a fondness for beauty that I can't quite comprehend. Our current society also believes in a unilateral marriage primarily - and although I'm not so sure that this belief is heald predominantly in Christian circles, I know I have seen, heard, and witnessed it. I think the book had a lot of accurate assessments, which I think was his major intent.
All said and done, I like my knives, darn it.
And I think you forgot to mention orchid there, Mike. ;)
| 2005/11/18 1:20||Profile|